Yes, I think Kevin's last point is the one that nails it. America hasn't shaken off its roots. The [unromanticised] "Wild" West, independence at the point of a gun, frontiership and the general "every man for himself" thing is at the heart of this (and all connected). To me the veneer of community, and even civilisation itself, is wafer thin in America. The "every man for himself" thing is perhaps exemplified by the aftermath of Katrina. In Australia, government and community band together to resolve such issues, usually without much drama. In America the government sends private mercenaries in to keep the peace.

It's that every man for himself attitude that I believe has led to the recent property boom in Western countries. People feel that they can no longer depend on the government to look after them, so anyone who can afford it is buying-up property so they will have more chance of looking after themselves in the future.

I believe it is the same psychology behind the guns.

Everyone wants their own country, complete with army, if they can get it.

It's that every man for himself attitude that I believe has led to the recent property boom in Western countries.

In Australia, a lot of the boom has been caused by the baby boomers upgrading their locations or spending their wealth from the shares market on property, as well as the criminal elements in the state governments [in NSW the Lebanese/Italian politicians and property development lobbyists], who no longer release new land in times of high immigration or build sufficient housing for the poor. Nor have governments done anything to quell the plethora of property TV shows that ramp up wantabe entrepreneurs or those who run business scams that use negative gearing to buy tonnes of properties for resale as prices rise.

The latter points are a straightforward "real and planned" conspiracy against the public. Rest assured the NSW pollies have made a bucketload via their policies or lack thereof, by buying up knowing that their policies will result in housing price increases.

The other factor is that "seeing how others live" as provided constantly by the media drives personal greed/selfishness to extremely high levels. A lot of young people have expections for quality and large houses, whereas 20-30 years ago such folk would have been satisfied with a small low priced house as their first house. Housing also has changed as technology means more people seek entertainment indoors rather than outside, and have more material possessions, so they feel that they need bigger, roomier houses.

As well as technology, multiculturalism also causes a breakdown in local community support/interrelationships/trust. Refer: The Downside of Diversity

I could have sworn someone around here once made the argument that the right to bear arms mean that "we, the people" could topple our own oppressive governments when they infringed upon our freedoms.

That was me.

I started re-thinking that position when that guy went into the capitol building in Denver and tried to declare himself Emperor. I thought, this is what I've been defending. This is what happens when you express your politics with a gun.

A conversation with a friend got across to me that to really oppose the government in a meaningful fashion, you would need a hell of a lot more than handguns. You would need real military equipment - howitzers, tanks, all that.

But that IS what the second amendment means, so there is nothing to rethink. You could rethink whether in this day of high tech weaponry, our rifles would do us much good. It's a valid point. Nonetheless, we would still have the capability of guerilla warfare.

People who are on 'disability' because of mental impairment, who then are at large to buy guns without having any proof whatever that they are rational, strikes me as problematic.

People who get their panties in a wad because they want the freedom to buy guns without identification, yet cannot see this problem, strike me as mentally unbalanced. And as I say, if gun ownership is for the purpose of preventing tyranny, and you do not also have a "well regulated militia" to do that with, you are indeed fucking crazy.

If you wanna prevent tyranny, then bring back the draft, and get rid of the mercenary army, who will follow whoever it is that they think pays them. Tyranny will not be prevented by a buncha disorganized gun nuts with assault rifles. It will be by taxing the rich to empower the middle class, who've always been the backbone of republics. Tyranny is always preceded by great inequality of wealth, and when the middle class gets poor enuf, they always call on a tyrant to throw the bastards out and shoot as many as necessary to redistribute the assets back to the middle class. Its a messy method, but has always worked.

People who are on 'disability' because of mental impairment, who then are at large to buy guns without having any proof whatever that they are rational, strikes me as problematic.

I don't know anything about the handgun buying process, but I suspect it is inadequate.

People who get their panties in a wad because they want the freedom to buy guns without identification, yet cannot see this problem, strike me as mentally unbalanced.

Do you think we should need identfication to buy hunting rifles?

And as I say, if gun ownership is for the purpose of preventing tyranny, and you do not also have a "well regulated militia" to do that with, you are indeed fucking crazy.

The gun ownership is for the purpose of rebelling against the well regulated militia, which is to say, the army. The army being traditionally used by despots to terrorize the populace. Which have generally been unarmed.

If you wanna prevent tyranny, then bring back the draft, and get rid of the mercenary army, who will follow whoever it is that they think pays them. Tyranny will not be prevented by a buncha disorganized gun nuts with assault rifles. It will be by taxing the rich to empower the middle class, who've always been the backbone of republics. Tyranny is always preceded by great inequality of wealth, and when the middle class gets poor enuf, they always call on a tyrant to throw the bastards out and shoot as many as necessary to redistribute the assets back to the middle class. Its a messy method, but has always worked.

Hmmm...must be why the USSR was such a paradise. The rich already pay most of the taxes. So if enequality of wealth preceded tyranny, then we might be headed for trouble, no?Was there this inequality of wealth preceding nazism in Germany?

I think "well regulated militia" is meant to refer to armies raised by the states, to keep the federal army in check, isn't it? That makes sense to me . . . at least the intention of trying to put as many checks and balances into the system as possible when they created it.

It's true that in the modern day handguns and rifles are no match for what the gov can dish out. The forefathers didn't foresee that. However, as I said earlier, it at least leaves the option of guerilla warfare, which can be quite effective.

I think "well regulated militia" is meant to refer to armies raised by the states, to keep the federal army in check, isn't it? That makes sense to me . . . at least the intention of trying to put as many checks and balances into the system as possible when they created it.

I don't think that's right. The word 'state' is also used, and was used in the past most of the time, to refer to a country. It's true that in the old days we were citizens of the states, not the federal gov, and the framers tried to keep the fed in check. The fed gov hardly existed when the 2nd amendment was written. One of the most important events that led to the second amendment was the St. Bartholomew's day massacre, in which the royalty, and the church, used the army to shoot large numbers of people, that is to say Protestants. It was a long series of events, not just a day. What the 2nd amendment is saying is that because any country will of course need to maintain an army, therefore the people will not be left unable to defend themselves against abuse by that army.

-woofer-But that IS what the second amendment means, so there is nothing to rethink. You could rethink whether in this day of high tech weaponry, our rifles would do us much good. It's a valid point. Nonetheless, we would still have the capability of guerilla warfare.

-tomas-You best start now on the million rounds of ammo.

-woofer-If you ask me, the time to rebel is long overdue.

-tomas-My advice to you is to read the signatures on the Declaration Of Independence.. Note the one who signed his name the largest of them all.

BTW - He used his real name. If it's long overdue, start using your "real" name. Stand up and be ready for the crosshairs to calibrate with your temples...

There is a way to bring down the Power Elite without firing a shot. Talk to the network administrators. If they decided to crash the networks and windows terminals, the entire military industrial complex would collapse over nite.

The network administrators could also extract personal data on all the important personnel, and then post that on the net. You will be able to email his momma and tell her what part her son has played in tyranny and corruption. Along with his wife and kids, all the other kids they are in school with, all the people his wife drinks coffee with or works with.

ps. here are some interesing sites you might want to have look at:Edit: Damn that site has been taken down... i will find a new link. <- dig there for "gun control facts" ... little history reminder for what happened to people who gave up the right to protect themselves with guns.(Hope the link works..)

Leyla Shen wrote:In the Second Amendment, â€œthe peopleâ€ clearly refers to the individual states as individual states and not the individual citizens who comprise them.

Sorry for bringing this up again, but something about it bothered me. In particular, if the Second Amendment was a limitation on the federal government and not on the states, then could not the rest of the Bill of Rights also be read that way? For instance, what about First Amendment rights like freedom of speech?

Actually, the First Amendment is even more limited, as it specifically states, "Congress shall make no law respecting..." which clearly defines the scope as only applying to the Federal government. The individual states could therefore, if they wanted, establish their own state church, or whatever. (I've been trying to find if it was interpreted that way, but haven't found a source yet.)

Let's then consider the later 14th Amendment, particularly the Equal Protection Clause. This seems to have extended the rights of citizens, and to have those rights over-rule state laws where the state rule conflicted. (This was especially important in civil rights issues involving race.) Today, "freedom of speech" is an accepted right for everyone, despite the very limited way it is worded in the First Amendment.

I don't see how the extensions of the 14th Amendment could be applied to the First Amendment (and the Fourth and Fifth Amendments) without also including the Second Amendment.

Of course, these interpretations vary over time, and the government has not been completely consistent in applying them. If the Federal government consistently applied the Second Amendment as a right of the states, there should be no federal gun laws (e.g., ban on machine guns or silencers, and particularly "Assault Weapons"), although the individual states could have them.

Anyway, I'm still reading up on this issue. Obviously, there's a lot of different interpretations and case law revolving around the single sentence of the 2nd Amendment. It seems clear that - like anything else, really - it tends to be interpreted in whatever way is politically convenient at the time.

Dave wrote:Sorry for bringing this up again, but something about it bothered me.

No need to apologise, I think itâ€˜s a great topic to pull apart. It ran away from me the last time I checked in and I didnâ€˜t have a lot of time to go over it, so I thought Iâ€™d leave it to take its course without me.

I think itâ€™s an area that, properly considered, promises a wealth of insight into the ideas/idealisms of men (or is that Woman?).

In particular, if the Second Amendment was a limitation on the federal government and not on the states, then could not the rest of the Bill of Rights also be read that way?

Yes. The Bill of Rights is appended to the Articles of the Constitution. I guess the biggest giveaway is the word â€œamendment"?

~

The Constitution of the United States of AmericaWe the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

My problem, Dave, is thus: one is trying here to legislate the so-called rights to peace and prosperity--security--when everything one had to do to get there has been all but peaceful, prosperous and secure. So, in effect, what one is trying to legislate is oneâ€™s right to practise just the opposite in the name of peace, prosperity and security for the united states. Itâ€™s the same thing, in other words. The right to peace, prosperity and security is the right to wage war, create poverty and insecurity in order to protect oneâ€™s own interests. Though the claim alludes to something on the order of natural human rights, it is really about egoistic â€œindividualâ€ rights since it acts not for and as mankind, but for and as â€œthe citizen.â€

What form of peace, prosperity and security can â€œthe citizenâ€ have when mankind is at war? Is the emancipation of man conditional upon his becoming a good citizen of the USA?

For instance, what about First Amendment rights like freedom of speech?

Actually, the First Amendment is even more limited, as it specifically states, "Congress shall make no law respecting..." which clearly defines the scope as only applying to the Federal government. The individual states could therefore, if they wanted, establish their own state church, or whatever. (I've been trying to find if it was interpreted that way, but haven't found a source yet.)

Your source is the Constitution.

Amendment ICongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

â€œCongress,â€ is a body of representatives coming together for discussion/to legislate. In respect of the US Constitution, it is:

Article ISection 1.All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Section 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature. (etcâ€¦)

Maybe this will help you in your decision? Hatred + Government + Disarmed Civilians = Genocide

Lol, the reality is that it would be the gun owners, being the dumb fucks they are, that will actually believe the propaganda put forth by a wantabe fascist or dictatorial government - just as they do in the present day with parties full of business criminals like the Republicans. Such people will bully those who want freedom into submitting. Rednecks love a bit of bullying.